Thank you very much for the introductory contribution there, Minister. I've a lot of questions on this. I wasn't actually involved with the two Acts that are referred to in this when they came through, so you'll forgive me if I say that I think that some of these regulations have been used as an opportunity to develop policy rather than to implement it—and why it is so important that we get the opportunity in this place through the affirmative procedure to scrutinise regulations. One of the things I wanted to say upfront, actually, is that it's really, really pleasing to see that some of the regulations here make it clear for people who are subject to those regulations how they are to comply with the regulations, in terms of the evidence that they have to provide in order to comply. I think those were omissions in some of the earlier legislation that we brought through in this place, but I think this is a vast improvement on that particular score. 

In a way, Minister, I just want to treat this a little bit more as a statement rather than a debate, so I hope I can just ask you a few questions. The first is that the document that we've got today,—and it's a fairly chunky one, I have to say—only affects four types of regulated service, as defined in the 2016 regulation and inspection Act. I just wondered if you have any plans to introduce separate regulations for the regulated services that aren't covered in this. They may not actually be necessary, but it would be quite useful to have your take on that. And, in identifying those requirements that I've just mentioned to provide evidence, in this case for good standards of care and support by a service provider, Ministers have to have regard to an individual's well-being, as you might expect, and any particular standards set out in a code issued under Section 9 of 2014 social services and well-being Act—obviously, a different Act. At the moment, I understand that there are no codes under that Act. They haven't been issued. But, as we know with school standards and reorganisation, the existence and interpretation of codes have been material in supporting one party's position or another. So, I suppose my question is whether you are expecting any codes to emerge from the 2014 Act, and if some do, will these regulations that you're looking at today be revisited in order to take anything that might be in those codes into account in the future?

On staffing, you mentioned that you'd taken into account information that came to you via the public consultation. You might remember in particular there was some concern—I raised this with your predecessor, actually—about the removal of the requirement for 24-hour nursing care in some homes, despite there being expectations on the part of the people in those homes that that's what they would be getting, and indeed, in some cases, contractual obligations to provide that. Can you tell me how vulnerable to prosecution would the responsible individual be under these regulations in circumstances where nursing care is required unexpectedly for somebody who wasn't actually assessed as needing nursing care as an ongoing requirement—either because of that reason, or because a nurse was identified as necessary but isn't available for some reason, or whether there's a temporary staffing shortage, as opposed to deliberate flouting of the rules? Because we just have to watch out for responsible individuals who might find themselves in this quandary. I'm quite happy to take some written replies to these, because I appreciate some of them are quite detailed.

On zero-hours contracts, I'm really pleased to see that there's something in these regulations about this, although, as I say, this actually feels like policy development as well as bringing some clarity to the position. I just wanted to ask you on this: in the case where a zero-hours-contract care worker might choose to go on a contract, if we were looking at the first choice of contract, which is based on the average number of hours worked in the previous few months, have you made an assessment about the risk of care providers reducing artificially the amount of time that's worked by a care worker during the preceding three months in order to artificially deflate the average number of hours that they're working for a new contract? And, in the case of a contract that would be for less than that average, which is also an option open to a care worker, what would be the benefit for the people being cared for in those circumstances Because potentially they could choose to go on a sort of 'Let's have two hours a week' contract, which probably in some cases would even reduce the continuity of care for some of the people being cared for. As I say, you may not have answers for these today, but I'm genuinely curious to know how that's being looked at.

Then finally—am I allowed to say 'finally'? The delineation between the travel and caring time—I think this is something that we all recognised needed looking at, and I really welcome what you've done on this. Paragraph 41(3)(b) does actually attempt to answer some of my questions regarding this, but in a situation where a care provider has assessed the travel time for a particular individual and that turns out to be inadequate, does the care worker then have a right to go back to the service provider and insist that they relook at that particular period of time that's been assessed? I couldn't find it in the regs. I'm hoping there is something. Thank you very much, Llywydd.